Have something to say?

Ready to be published? LXer is read by around 350,000 individuals each month, and is an excellent place for you to publish your ideas, thoughts, reviews, complaints, etc. Do you have something to say to the Linux community?

The War (II)

Paul writes: "People should care about these issues, and over time we've seen things like the Electronic Frontier Foundation emerge and other politically oriented groups, but I believe in the past decade we've only scratched the surface of what we have to do to ensure digital democracy, so to speak."

I've heard a lot of criticism over the years about the Linux community.

We're not cohesive enough.

We fight in public forums over technology, licenses and so on.

We use terminology that the uninitiated do not understand.

We're unprofessional.

We're all about hating Microsoft.

It's this last point that I take issue with the most.

While there's a lot of anger in this mob, it's not some kind of freak
accident that brought us together. The paranoia that exhibits itself is
also not an accident. Being who
we are, by definition, puts us on the other side of a fence that we did not
erect. It makes us an "enemy" of Microsoft.

This is not some Linux community-specific issue -- it's a function of the
competition. Microsoft is known for dirty tactics. They don't just
abuse their competitors, they even take on the people that previously
bought their products.
They're known for more than ruthless competition -- Microsoft is
known for burying the survivors. Broken promises litter the Microsoft
landscape.

Step over the fence, into Open-Source/Free Software (FOSS) land.

Our communication model is in public. Lying brings you a ton of people that
will "correct" your perception. You can make dirty deals if you like -- but
the long term relationships that sour are black marks on your record. Trust
is what it's all about. Community, by definition, is about building trust
over time.

That's what puts me firmly on this side of the fence.
That's what this article is
about. I'd like to state, again, why it's very hard for Linux community
members to "just get along" with Microsoft, as some people have suggested over
the years.

Just getting along. What a wonderful concept.

Let me speculate here over why we're not likely to "just get along." Our open
standards have been repeatedly subject to slightly broken versions implemented
by Microsoft. Standards that should have been used, have been replaced
by proprietary ones that have legal implications when it comes to reverse
engineering.

Getting along, doesn't that involve some kind of level playing field? Things
like standards that are truly open where everyone can see them and use them
for the collaborative greater good?
Don't we need Standards that are not extended without a decision by committee?

When these standards don't work, the public doesn't always
perceive the problem as being a Microsoft problem -- often they think there is
something wrong on the Open Source / Free Software side of the fence.

Joe Public is often completely ignorant of the entire idea of open standards.
People often wrongly assume that Microsoft's document formats are open
standards, for example. Giving someone an open alternative is often
perceived in a negative light, as changes in programs, attitude and process
are required to make the world a better, more open place to compute.

People should care about these issues, and over time we've seen things like
the Electronic Frontier Foundation emerge and other politically oriented groups, but I believe in the past
decade we've only scratched the surface of what we have to do to ensure
digital democracy, so to speak. Freedom of the press resides in the owner of
that press. Each bad document format decision, proprietary choice and so on
bring the ownership of that virtual press further out of the hands of
Freedom. If the public understood just how bad things were, I think they
would be up in arms -- but it's "too technical". They're having enough trouble
just getting to the point of understanding the basic concepts required to
be productive.

I honestly believe that Microsoft has exploited this confusion repeatedly over
the years. The only way to stop it is to become more involved with your
community (and not just the Linux one). To speak out when you can. To
write your congressman. To be part of the solution. One thing for sure,
the problem has not gone away -- it's gotten worse. Things are getting
more complex by the minute, and simply ignoring the issues on the table will
not make them go away.

Microsoft will use these and similar tricks to their advantage repeatedly.
The only way to stop it currently is to hope that Joe Public will see benefits from interaction between several different operating systems, such as OSX, Linux and Windows.

Remember who your target audience is. This is the guy counting pennies at
Best Buy, looking at PCs that come with Windows XP as a "free" feature.
Often they aren't even aware that there's a choice being made.

What about legislating an end to this problem? It's not a new idea, but
I don't believe that legislation, per se, picking technological
features, would be a good idea. Some of what is going on with the
Mass. government is an example of what might be an exception to this rule.

But is this what has to be done, or is it overkill? Is it a reaction to
Microsoft, or something necessary to make the world a better place? They
are different problems, in other words. I shudder at the thought of what
extra legislation does to the computing universe, every time I read about it.
The danger, in other words, is that some day we won't be able to code --
possibly no one will -- if things get any more complex in the compliance
department.

I'm for it, in the mean time, if it helps reign in Microsoft. My reservations
are for the long haul, however. At what point does our government get in the
way of innovation with policies applied to software? Adding fuel to the fire
is the fact that some of the articles passed prior help Microsoft, so the
gut reaction by a lot of people is to respond with some kind of legislative
"balance".

I repeat, we didn't choose this fight. We live by a totally different
set of rules than Microsoft.
Take the *BSD universe in conjunction with the Linux community.
Do you see the BSD people breaking the TCP/IP implementation so that Linux
won't work on the same network? It's an unthinkable idea, but common on the
other side of the fence.

We live in a world where our cards are face up on the table. We, by
definition, chose not to play the proprietary game. We refuse, by the
very definition of who we are.

This doesn't mean we're going to "win", by the way.

What it does mean is that we're not about to stand idly by while
viral proprietary software ruins our
world. We're not about watching the losses from businesses taking the trip
to the Microsoft store like a bunch of addicts visiting the local crack house.
We're going to say and do things that go against this -- and that puts us on
the other side of the fence.

No, I did not chose this war. I did not invent it -- it was done for me.
It was sealed in stone the day my better informed decisions were over-ridden
by others o simply didn't understand. The network effects of the Microsoft
"marketing" equation cannot be ignored. If we don't hold the line and push
back, we lose.

The cash on the table for Microsoft is enormous. They know that the less
competition, the more freedom they have to charge whatever they want, break
whatever standards they feel like, and ruin any competitor that shows up
on the radar.

How did we, the Linux community, become the exception to this rule?

Revenue, for one, is not needed to sustain Linux (as much) as with other
competitors, but especially Microsoft. This has lead to something they never
expected: longevity. But still, very little desktop Linux is in sight of
the typical PC buying individual. Will this matter? I'm beginning to
believe that it's not as important as before, but time will tell. Paradigms
are shifting faster and faster. Mozilla Firefox, for example, has done
the unthinkable; it has taken ground that Microsoft thought was exclusively
their own.

Still I'm skeptical that the FOSS revolution is simply going to happen without
a good push and a recognition that we're in a war of sorts. I hate the
visuals, but the description in the marketplace will always apply if Microsoft
is going to continue the types of tactics they're known for.

I honestly think that the world would be a better place if there were more
competition in the operating system environment -- and I think we're going to
possibly see it as Apple takes some Intel market share, and things like
pre-loaded Linux start to take an upswing.

This would not have even been thinkable prior to the anti-trust efforts won
by the Department of Justice. It's amazing what some litigation can do, in
other words. Too bad it had to come to this. Too bad we can't all just
sing Kum Bah Yah and give it all big group hug. Face reality -- it ain't
gonna happen any time soon.

This isn't about being nice, this is about having the technology that you
need to do your job -- the stuff that helps you enjoy your work and be
creative.
Possibly this will help explain to some people why Linux enthusiasts are
so passionate.
Some technology is more than some bits and bytes sitting on a Microsoft install
CD -- some technology empowers you to be creative, to make things that didn't
exist before, instead of simply clicking some radio buttons and locking
your company into God knows what future licensing and product choices.
People care about the technology due to these kinds of concerns -- they
often simply don't have the means to vocalize why.

I know some people make attempts to articulate the rage, to explain why, but
in rude obnoxious posts to web sites. For every one of those people there
are 50 more who are far more diplomatic, or much more reserved in their
willingness to explain the issues at hand. These people know that FOSS
solutions are often higher quality, far more stable, adhere to known open
standards and (big surprise) save money in the long run.
The fact that these solutions deliver the ability to be more creative and
provide more degrees of freedom is often a hidden driving force.

These people aren't in the grandstands telling everyone to "just get along".
These people are foot-soldiers in the revolution.

One of my old bosses used to say to me: "Paul, just because you are paranoid, that doesn't mean that someone isn't out to get you." Well, the Linux community, it's paranoid all right. They have seen the dead bodies of their predecessors on the field. They know what evil they face -- at least most of them do.

I feel that I do. The gut reaction by some of the spectators is to reduce
the emotional charge of our message -- they feel it's counterproductive to
communicating what we're all about. By now, maybe, you can see why that's
not an option. You put someone in the gun sights, they're going to get
emotional. We're not out sniping, by the way -- we're simply trying to make
the world a better place. It's insanity to think that we can just wish away
Microsoft's aggression for Linux and open standards in general.

This is why we can't just stand on the sidelines
and think that this is a technical talk we're having. This part of the
"battle" involves truthfully getting out the message of the choices that
are at hand. We owe it to our peers and customers to explain the value of
FOSS. The alternative is a bleak one. Let's look at the world as it doesn't
exist today. Imagine going in to work, and helping a colleague with proprietary plague by
installing the FOSS alternative.

Dream on.

It's a beautiful thought, isn't it? We could just choose the operating
system or technology that best fit the job.
We wouldn't worry about market share or
whether or not we're gaining or losing any "battles"

Like it or not, we are at war.

Sound the alarm with a clear head and a truthful
voice. Don't be lulled by kind words about us all "just getting along".
I'd like to see it happen. Judging from past experience, it's going to
be quite a long wait if it involves Microsoft.